The Temporally Confused Corrective Map of the World

by **j21623** on Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:55 pm

Map Name: The Temporally Confused Corrective Map of the World: Because North being up is too arbitrary
Mapmaker(s): j21623
Number of Territories: Fifty (50)
Special Features:
1) South is Up. I've always felt it was all too arbitrary for North to be Up, why not East, West or South? It doesn't have to be Eurocentric ya' know.
2) This map includes the Pacific Islands and Antarctica. World 2.1 has Antarctica but no world map thus far has included the Pacific Islands. I didn't include all of them, but nonetheless.
3) The creative territory borders and names. In certain cases, I named a country in its native language (Spain, Greenland, Iceland, Japan, etc.) Also, I've included tons of different time periods all put in the same map. The Ottoman, Napoleonic, Mongolian, and British Indian Empires, the USSR, the colonial New World and Africa all coexist in a refreshing, new way. Some might say it's confusing, but most people aren't going to focus on it to the point where it's annoying. It makes for a map different from what we're used to.
4) The newness: This map is a whole new take on the World map. It doesn't have as many territories as World 2.1, but it has many more connections and continents than Classic. It would be a totally new strategy despite being visually similar. South America, for example, still has four territories, but now every single one must be occupied to defend the continent. This makes for higher bonuses on average and different strategies too.
What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: Eh, see above. I pretty much answered that one and this one right there.

Map Image:

Click image to enlarge.

Note: I am currently working on the XML file, but I have no idea how to do coordinates. Can anyone help with that?

by **DoomYoshi** on Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:33 pm

I like it. However, it is not yet ready for XML. This isn't land grab lol.

Before you go any further the map needs to be approved at various steps. First step is idea, which I think it passes.

by **natty dread** on Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:52 pm

I think it's a good start. Don't worry about the XML right now, there's no point in making the XML at this time.

The south-side-up view doesn't quite convince me though. It just seems too gimmicky, novelty for novelty's sake.

by **DoomYoshi** on Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:25 am

natty dread wrote:I think it's a good start. Don't worry about the XML right now, there's no point in making the XML at this time.

The south-side-up view doesn't quite convince me though. It just seems too gimmicky, novelty for novelty's sake.

Putting north up is an arbitrary decision though. Using a different arbitrary decision is not inherently a gimmick. While it doesn't add anything, it also doesn't take anything away.

by **natty dread** on Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:15 am

It was maybe an "arbitrary decision" once. Now, it's a convention. Flipping the map around doesn't bring anything useful to it, it doesn't serve any useful purpose.

It's kind of like a hipster thing, being different for the sake of being different. There's no inherent value in being different, if it doesn't bring anything useful to the table, and in this case it only serves as a distraction - it doesn't fit the theme, it just makes the map look gimmicky.

by **tkr4lf** on Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:34 am

I like it. It's interesting.

More than anything, I like the artwork, it has that hand-drawn look to it.

Good luck in making this happen...I'd definitely play it if it does get made.

by **ManBungalow** on Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:26 pm

natty dread wrote:It was maybe an "arbitrary decision" once. Now, it's a convention. Flipping the map around doesn't bring anything useful to it, it doesn't serve any useful purpose.

It's kind of like a hipster thing, being different for the sake of being different. There's no inherent value in being different, if it doesn't bring anything useful to the table, and in this case it only serves as a distraction - it doesn't fit the theme, it just makes the map look gimmicky.

I think it's at the point now where not being hipster is the hipster thing to do.

EDIT: Cool map.

by **Gilligan** on Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:29 pm

tkr4lf wrote:I like it. It's interesting.

More than anything, I like the artwork, it has that hand-drawn look to it.

Good luck in making this happen...I'd definitely play it if it does get made.

+1, I agree. I like the concept and early drafting of it.

by **j21623** on Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:44 pm

So I've got 3 votes for (plus my own, if that counts) and 1 vote against. How many votes are needed for the Draft Stamp?

by **natty dread** on Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:33 pm

j21623 wrote:So I've got 3 votes for (plus my own, if that counts) and 1 vote against. How many votes are needed for the Draft Stamp?

It doesn't work that way... the foundry is not a democracy.

Basically, you keep working on your map, according to the feedback you receive, and when the CA:s deem your map ready you'll get the draft stamp. To get it you need to show that the concept of your map is viable and has reasonable support, and that you're able to take the graphics up to CC standards.

by **j21623** on Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:13 pm

natty dread wrote:It doesn't work that way... the foundry is not a democracy.

Basically, you keep working on your map, according to the feedback you receive, and when the CA:s deem your map ready you'll get the draft stamp. To get it you need to show that the concept of your map is viable and has reasonable support, and that you're able to take the graphics up to CC standards.

I see. Oligarchy then? Two Questions:
1: What constitutes "reasonable support?"
2: What does it mean to take graphics up to "Conquer Club Standards?" I'm working with Gimp, not Photoshop. Therefore, there's only so much I can do. Also, I kinda wanted to keep the sketchy look if that's ok.

Also, how many CA's need to agree? How many are there?
Sorry for all the questions, but I am curious.

by **natty dread** on Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:48 pm

j21623 wrote:1: What constitutes "reasonable support?"

It's determined on a case-by-case basis, there are no clear rules for it, like "get x people to post in support" or such.

j21623 wrote:2: What does it mean to take graphics up to "Conquer Club Standards?" I'm working with Gimp, not Photoshop.

So? I work with GIMP. This is my latest work: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=159163

GIMP is capable of everything Photoshop is, at least for mapmaking purposes.

j21623 wrote:Also, I kinda wanted to keep the sketchy look if that's ok.

Sure, you can go for that kind of look for your map. The foundry is fairly liberal when it comes to choosing the style for your graphics, as long as it fits the theme of your map. But the technical execution can always be improved.

j21623 wrote:Also, how many CA's need to agree? How many are there?

List of CA:s can be found here memberlist.php?mode=group&g=152290

You don't really need to concern yourself with the internal decision making process of the CA:s... let's just say, from your point of view, they act as a unanimous hivemind.